Skyrim - Why Fallout: New Vegas is the Better Game

The basis of Skyrim's story - for all purposely fantastical - just isn't all that interesting. A bunch of dragons died years ago…now they're back and plan to take over the world [insert overly-complicated reason why]… oh, by the way - you're the ‘chosen one', the only one who can stop them [insert almost non-existent reason why]… get to work.
Compare this with Fallout's very real threat of nuclear war and the devastating effect it would have on the planet. As a mere courier, you are instantly aware of just how expendable you are in New Vegas. The Mojave Wasteland is almost the perfect setting, as it drives home a desperate scenario of desolation. The reinvented New Vegas; overrun with gangs and thugs battling for both power and survival is almost certainly how our fickle human race would act if placed in similar circumstances. Battling your way to the top in order to save New Vegas from itself and being forced to decide who you can trust; kill or let live, all makes for gripping storytelling.

Both brilliant games IMO. One did a better job of incorporating player reputation with NPC factions into the gameplay and main quest. The other did a better job of creating a new and incredibly immersive game world, with powerful systems for A.I. and dynamic events.

Originally Posted by Corwin
They are both excellent, but different games. What's wrong with that? Each one has differing strengths and weaknesses, but so what!! It's apples and oranges and I like each at different times!!

Totally agree…that same logic works on most games, when you take emotions out of it. If you have fun with it that's great it doesn't have to be the greatest at everything.

Compare this with Fallout's very real threat of nuclear war and the devastating effect it would have on the planet.

What? Fallout… Very real threat? Fallout? We ARE talking about the The-Future-Is-Stuck-In-The-1950s-Fallout? The Giant-Scorpion-Fallout? The Atomic-Car-Fallout? Fallout is not great because it shows a possible future, but an interesting one.

Honestly, if you think Fallout has any real connection to a possible future, then Skyrim also has a real connection to a possible past.

(Edit: So, yes, I liked both of them, replayed Fallout NV this summer and will replay Skyrim as soon as the Dragonborn DLC is out for PC.)

They are both very good, in somewhat different ways, although I am glad that I did not play them back to back as they are similar. Both of them got tiring to me after playing for so long, but even at that point they were still somewhat enjoyable.

I enjoyed the story telling of Fallout NV better and the scenery of Skyrim better.

Good Grief, what editorial buffoonery. There's no need to compare to two; they offer entirely different experiences, both of which I enjoy. I like New Vegas alot more for what it aspires to do design wise (especially in providing choice to the player) but in no way does that necessarily make it objectively the better game. Everything boils down to personal preference.

I don't go for the whole "Well my chocolate ice-cream tastes better than your strawberry ice cream so nyaah!" line of argument just to troll a response from people.

Both are wonderful. Skyrim has a much more interesting flora and fauna system and is just beautiful to travel. FNV has better companions and overall writing. I thought Skyrim's opponents were much more real, as were their motivations. To me, the Imperials vs the Stormcloaks was more realistic than Kaisar's legions vs NCR. The chance of the legion winning against the NCR just didn't make sense. The House side of FNV was just silly and out of place. Then again, Skyrim had the benefit of seeing what another developer did with their engine, and I think it paid off.

Originally Posted by Corwin
They are both excellent, but different games. What's wrong with that? Each one has differing strengths and weaknesses, but so what!! It's apples and oranges and I like each at different times!!

I agree. They're two of the best games I've played for years. Trying to pick one over the other is not needed.

As a mere courier, you are instantly aware of just how expendable you are in New Vegas. The Mojave Wasteland is almost the perfect setting, as it drives home a desperate scenario of desolation.

Reality: as a player, you are instantly aware of just how indispensable you are. Nothing advances without your bidding. The game story writing is set to give you that exceptional feeling and as such, your progress toward the completion of the story is mandatory. Failure but terminal is absent. You will reign supreme in the end.

It is the same for Skyrim. But for one reason or another, the author fancied over FO more.

The post-apocalyptic settings might be for something in the mix. After all, post apocalyptic settings are very trendy these days.